My Nemesis Is 3D [Rant]

by Nicole Wakelin on June 7, 2011

in Features,Movies


There was a time when 3D was new and exciting with people wearing cute little cardboard glasses. They ate their popcorn and waited for things to pop out of the screen and scare them so badly they’d spill it into their laps. Fast forward a few years, okay more than a few, all the way to Avatar. Now 3D isn’t a gimmick, they say, it’s an experience. They even give it a cooler name, RealD, which seems to be merely an excuse to make me wear horribly uncomfortable glasses and charge me a few extra bucks. I find it distracting and cringe when I see movies released only this way. I still see them, rubbing behind my ears and adjusting those stupid glass for half the movie, but I’d much rather just see things in good old 2D. This weekend my dislike of 3D reached new heights when it became partly to blame for me not getting to see the movie I wanted to see. It officially became my nemesis.

I showed up at the theater and tried to get tickets to see X-Men: First Class. I know, I should have bought them online, but I had a last minute opportunity so I thought I’d give it a chance. It was showing in only one screen in three separate movie theaters in my area (all of which were sold out), but both Kung Fu Panda 3D and Pirates of the Caribbean 3D had plenty of seats. Both films were showing in 2D and 3D in each theater.

So, instead of having them just each shown in one theater, which was clearly all they needed, the movies were released in two formats so they each got two theaters. Two wasted theaters that could easily have been filled up with those of us who wanted to see X-Men. Nope, that’s only playing on one screen despite the fact that it’s the #1 movie in the country right now.

Now, I know there’s a whole complicated system in place that regulates what movies are shown in what theaters and on how many screens. But, if those movies had only been released in 2D instead of the completely unnecessary RealD, then the chances of me seeing a movie that deserved the extra screens would have been much better. I still have not seen X-Men and with a busy week ahead of me I may not get another chance until next weekend. I can only hope that there’s not another 3D release looming on the horizon ready to suck up additional screens. Be gone, 3D, I’ve had enough of you!

Am I the only one that doesn’t get the 3D thing? Do you think it makes movies must-see or must-miss?

This article was reprinted from Total Fan Girl, a blog written by Nicole Wakelin.

Tagged as: 3D, rant, x-men, x-men first class

  • http://www.facebook.com/richard.tietjens Richard Tietjens

    No, you are not the only one. 3D is a gimmick. It was a gimmick in the 50s when it first came to the big screen, it’s a gimmick now, and it’s useless.

  • http://msmith13.wordpress.com/ Mark

    Depth perception varies quite a lot from person to person, and the 3D illusion simply does not work for some people, or else it’s so weak as not to be worth the bother. So whether you  “get the 3D thing” or not is much more than just an aesthetic judgment. Some people find it quite compelling. The more I read arguments one way or the other, the more they sound like the universal online assertion that “other people should not enjoy things I don’t like.”

  • Vicki Hande

    I can only see out of one eye.  So yeah the 3d thing is lost on me.

  • http://www.facebook.com/campanawannadave Dave Britt

    3D is a gimmick…and a lame one at that.
    Avatar was a good movie when I saw it in 2D, then I saw it again in 3D. That’s when I realized how horrible a movie, it truly was. The crappy 3D effects forced me to reflect on the extra money I paid, in turn forcing me to scrutinize every aspect of the movie itself. My final thought before I got out of my seat was “I just paid 13 dollars to see Pocahontas 3000.

    Before I left the theater I noticed everyone dropping their paid for glasses into a return receptacle. I did not. In fact I take solace in that fact…that and I stole about 12 pair out of the box.

    The only advantage I can see about 3D is what you claim to be a downside. Sure you might not have been able to see X-Men this time, but maybe, just maybe, next time it will be Twilight on that side of the theater and you’ll see some fangirl crying sparkling streaks of tears soaked in glitter.

  • Zofia Sparlin

    The new 3D movies look blurry to me, more like a hologram card than “real life”, so I pass on only 3D theater releases and wait for the DVD. I do remember seeing a 3D documentary at an IMAX theater where I didn’t have that problem and it was pretty cool, but I don’t want to that same kind of interactive experience during an action movie, it would just make it too overwhelming.

  • http://twitter.com/CompleteNerdom Complete Nerdom

    Absolutely DEAD ON… the 3D craze is out of control. We really dont want to go see a movie and have to take a dramamine half an hour before we sit down to watch. Hollywood is so fast to jump on gimmicks. We were really happy that the X-Men: First Class was not 3D. That movie was amazing and didnt need any extra hollywood bedazzling.

  • Tazalanche

    Until it is as crystal clear as a 2D movie (or real life) AND does not require accessories (ill fitting glasses & medication for headaches or motion sickness) to view it, 3D/RealD movies will remain nothing more than a gimmick.

  • http://twitter.com/NicoleWakelin Nicole Wakelin

    Yay!  Okay so if all of us think 3D is a complete waste and actually makes movies worse….why is no one listening to us?  Grrrrrr……

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_D5SNUHDQV2FN5AE6DLCMXZUJDU Alex

    You are an idiot.

    You’re mad at 3-D because you weren’t able to get tickets to a big summer blockbuster during it’s opening weekend because you showed up at the last minute?  Are you serious?

    I’m not the biggest fan of 3-D, but exercise some common f*cking sense, man.

  • Anonymous

    The crux of any change has to be the benefit it brings. Does 3D bring the extra benefit/value people are looking for in films? That’s the question.

    For me, it’s a no. Every film I’ve seen in 3D, I’ve seen in 2D. Not one, in my opinion, was a better film for being in 3D. Some (yes Alice in Wonderland and Clash of the Titans I’m looking at you) detract so much from the film that they become pratically unwatcheable.

    I’d love to see a film that used 3D to improve the story telling, to give me a movie that just NEEDS 3D. But I doubt I’ll see that until it becomes a defacto-glassesless technology.

Previous post:

Next post: